Search

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the flowering tops of Thymbra capitata (L.) Cav. (Spanish type origanum oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum use level in complete feed of 15 mg/kg for poultry species, 30 mg/kg for pigs and horses, 20 mg/kg for ruminants, 25 mg/kg for rabbits, dogs, cats and ornamental fish, and 125 mg/kg for salmonids. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 15 mg/kg complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use level in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of the additive in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since T. capitata and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of tea tree oil obtained from leaves and terminal branchlets of Melaleuca alternifolia (Maiden & Betche) Cheel when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that tea tree oil was very unlikely to be of safety concern for long‐living and reproductive animals and is of no concern for target species for fattening at the following concentrations in complete feed: 1.1 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 1.5 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 1.7 mg/kg for laying hens, 2.0 mg/kg for piglets, 2.4 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 3.1 mg/kg for sows, 5.0 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer) and salmonids, 4.4 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses, 2.9 mg/kg for dairy cows, 1.8 mg/kg for rabbits, 0.9 mg/kg for cats, 5.3 mg/kg for dogs, 6.6 for crustaceans and 15 mg/kg for ornamental fish. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is very unlikely to be of safety concern at 1.1 mg/kg complete feed. No concerns for consumers and the environment were identified following the use of the additive up to the highest safe use level in feed. Regarding user safety, tea tree oil should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. It is classified as a reprotoxic substance (category 1B) following CLP criteria and should be handled accordingly. Since M. alternifolia and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract The present opinion is the follow‐up of the conclusions and recommendations of the Scientific Opinion on the re‐evaluation of silicon dioxide (E 551) as a food additive relevant to the safety assessment for all age groups. In addition, the risk assessment of silicon dioxide (E 551) for its use in food for infants below 16 weeks of age is performed. Based on the newly available information on the characterisation of the SAS used as E 551 and following the principles of the 2021 EFSA Guidance on Particle‐TR, the conventional safety assessment has been complemented with nano‐specific considerations. Given the uncertainties resulting from the limitations of the database and in the absence of genotoxicity concern, the Panel considered that it is not appropriate to derive an acceptable daily intake (ADI) but applied the margin of exposure (MOE) approach for the risk assessment. The Panel concluded that the MOE should be at least 36 for not raising a safety concern. The calculated MOEs considering the dietary exposure estimates for all population groups using the refined non‐brand loyal scenario, estimated at the time of the 2018 re‐evaluation, were all above 36. The Panel concluded that E 551 does not raise a safety concern in all population groups at the reported uses and use levels. The use of E 551 in food for infants below 16 weeks of age in FC 13.1.1 and FC 13.1.5.1 does not raise a safety concern at the current exposure levels. The Panel also concluded that the technical data provided support an amendment of the specifications for E 551 laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. The paucity of toxicological studies with proper dispersion protocol (with the exception of the genotoxicity studies) creates uncertainty in the present assessment of the potential toxicological effects related to the exposure to E 551 nanosize aggregates.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Spanish sage oil from the leaves of Salvia officinalis ssp. lavandulifolia (Vahl) Gams (Spanish sage oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum use level of 14 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use of Spanish sage oil in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of Spanish sage oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the oil of the leaves of S. officinalis ssp. lavandulifolia (Vahl) Gams is recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of authorisation of a preparation containing a smoke flavouring extract for cats and dogs. The applicant provided data demonstrating that the additive currently on the market does not fully comply with the conditions of authorisation, but with newly proposed specifications based on different analytical methods. Considering that the additive under assessment contains benzofuran and styrene, for which a potential concern for genotoxicity has been identified, and that the whole mixture raises a potential concern for genotoxicity, additional data would be needed to complete the assessment. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for cats and dogs. The additive is authorised for use in feed for cats and dogs, and therefore, there is no need to perform an assessment of the safety for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. When handling the additive, exposure of unprotected users to potential genotoxic substances may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a Camellia oleifera C.Abel seed extract (Cosap®) as technological feed additive for all animal species except fin fish. In the absence of adequate tolerance studies in the target species or toxicological studies with the additive under assessment, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the safety of C. oleifera extract for the target species. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is not expected to cause concern for consumer safety. The additive is considered as irritant to the eyes and mucous membranes. No conclusions can be reached on the potential of the additive to be irritant to the skin or to be a dermal sensitiser. The use of the additive under the proposed conditions of use is considered safe for the terrestrial compartment. However, no conclusion can be reached on the safety of the additive for the environment when used in feed of aquatic animals other than fin fish. The Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious as an emulsifier when used according to proposed conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the fresh flowering tops of Lavandula angustifolia Mill. (lavender oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 30 mg/kg for dogs and ornamental fish. For the other target species, the calculated safe concentrations were 9 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 13 mg/kg for laying hens, 12 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 19 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 16 mg/kg for piglets, 23 mg/kg for sows, 39 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer) and salmonids, 35 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses, 22 mg/kg for dairy cows, 14 mg/kg for rabbits and 7 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 7 mg/kg complete feed. The use of lavender oil in water for drinking was considered safe provided that the total daily intake does not exceed the daily amount considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of lavender oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the oil of the flowering tops of L. angustifolia is recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract EFSA requested its Scientific Committee to prepare a guidance document on appraising and integrating evidence from epidemiological studies for use in EFSA's scientific assessments. The guidance document provides an introduction to epidemiological studies and illustrates the typical biases, which may be present in different epidemiological study designs. It then describes key epidemiological concepts relevant for evidence appraisal. This includes brief explanations for measures of association, exposure assessment, statistical inference, systematic error and effect modification. The guidance then describes the concept of external validity and the principles of appraising epidemiological studies. The customisation of the study appraisal process is explained including tailoring of tools for assessing the risk of bias (RoB). Several examples of appraising experimental and observational studies using a RoB tool are annexed to the document to illustrate the application of the approach. The latter part of this guidance focuses on different steps of evidence integration, first within and then across different streams of evidence. With respect to risk characterisation, the guidance considers how evidence from human epidemiological studies can be used in dose–response modelling with several different options being presented. Finally, the guidance addresses the application of uncertainty factors in risk characterisation when using evidence from human epidemiological studies.

Abstract The EFSA Scientific Committee has updated its 2010 Guidance on risk–benefit assessment (RBA) of foods. The update addresses methodological developments and regulatory needs. While it retains the stepwise RBA approach, it provides additional methods for complex assessments, such as multiple chemical hazards and all relevant health effects impacting different population subgroups. The updated guidance includes approaches for systematic identification, prioritisation and selection of hazardous and beneficial food components. It also offers updates relevant to characterising adverse and beneficial effects, such as measures of effect size and dose–response modelling. The guidance expands options for characterising risks and benefits, incorporating variability, uncertainty, severity categorisation and ranking of different (beneficial or adverse) effects. The impact of different types of health effects is assessed qualitatively or quantitatively, depending on the problem formulation, scope of the RBA question and data availability. The integration of risks and benefits often involves value‐based judgements and should ideally be performed with the risk–benefit manager. Metrics such as Disability‐Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) and Quality‐Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) can be used. Additional approaches are presented, such as probability of all relevant effects and/or effects of given severities and their integration using severity weight functions. The update includes practical guidance on reporting results, interpreting outcomes and communicating the outcome of an RBA, considering consumer perspectives and responses to advice.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the fruit of Carum carvi L. (caraway oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) Panel concluded that the use of caraway oil is of no concern up to the following concentrations in complete feed: 9 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 13 mg/kg for laying hens, 12 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 16 mg/kg for piglets, 19 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 24 mg/kg for sows, 35 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 11 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, 10 mg/kg for dairy cows, sheep, goats, horses and rabbits, 25 mg/kg for salmonids and dogs. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For cats, ornamental fish and other species, no conclusion can be drawn. The use of caraway oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. The additive under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a respiratory and skin sensitiser. When handling the essential oil, exposure of unprotected users to perillaldehyde may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. Since C. carvi and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the fruit of Apium graveolens L. (celery seed oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) Panel concluded that the use of celery seed oil is of no concern up to the following concentrations in complete feed: 1.6 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 2.3 mg/kg for laying hens, 2.1 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 2.8 mg/kg for piglets, 3.3 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 4.1 mg/kg for sows, 6.5 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 6.2 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep, goats and horses, 4.0 mg/kg for dairy cows, 2.5 mg/kg for rabbits, 6.8 mg/kg for salmonids and 7.2 mg/kg for dogs. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For cats, ornamental fish and other species, no conclusion can be drawn. The use of celery seed oil in animals feed is not expected to pose concern for the consumers and for the environment. The additive under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a respiratory and skin sensitiser. When handling the essential oil, exposure of unprotected users to perillaldehyde and bergapten may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. Since A. graveolens and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a tincture from the dried flower bud of Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merr. & L.M. Perry (clove tincture) when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The product is a ■■■■■) solution, with a dry matter content of ~ 1.66%. The product contains on average 0.511% phenolic acids (of which 0.0344% were flavonoids), 0.039% eugenol, 0.00019% methyleugenol and 0.00008% estragole. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of clove tincture is very unlikely to be of safety concern for the target species up to the maximum proposed use level of 50 mg clove tincture/kg complete feed for all animal species, except for horses, for which the proposed use level is 200 mg/kg complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the use in water for drinking alone or in combination with use in feed should not exceed the daily amount that is considered very unlikely to be of safety concern when consumed via feed alone. No safety concern would arise for the consumer and the environment from the use of clove tincture up to the maximum proposed use levels in feed. The additive under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. When handling the additive, exposure of unprotected users to methyleugenol and estragole may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. Since the flower buds of S. aromaticum and their preparations were recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same, no demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of tinctures obtained from the dried leaves of Ginkgo biloba L. (ginkgo tinctures) when used as sensory additives. The tinctures are water/ethanol solutions with a dry matter content of 5.7% (tincture A) and 3.0% (tincture B). The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additives under assessment are safe for the target species at the following concentrations in complete feed: (i) ginkgo tincture A at 240 mg/kg for horses and 750 mg/kg for dogs; (ii) ginkgo tincture B at 600 mg/kg for horses and 50 mg/kg for all other animal species. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of ginkgo tinctures up to the maximum proposed use level in feed for the target species. The tinctures should be considered as irritants to skin and eyes, and as dermal and respiratory sensitisers. The use of ginkgo tinctures at the proposed use levels in feed for the target species is not considered to be a risk to the environment. While the available data indicate that Ginkgo preparations have a distinctive flavour profile, there is no evidence that ginkgo tinctures would impart flavour to a food or feed matrix. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additives.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of citronella oil obtained from the leaves of Cymbopogon nardus (L.) Rendle, when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that citronella oil from C. nardus is of low concern for long‐living and reproductive animals at the use levels in complete feed of 3.5 mg/kg for laying hens and rabbits, 6 mg/kg for sows and dairy cows, 9.5 mg/kg for sheep/goats and horses, 2.0 mg/kg for cats and 10 mg/kg for dogs. For short‐living animals (species for fattening), the additive was considered of no concern at concentrations of 18 mg/kg in chickens for fattening, 24 mg/kg in turkeys for fattening, 20 mg/kg for piglets, pigs for fattening, veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, sheep/goats for meat production, horses for meat production and rabbits for meat production, and 30 mg/kg for salmonids. The conclusions were extrapolated to physiologically related minor species. For any other species, the additive is considered of low concern at 2.0 mg/kg complete feed. The use of citronella oil in animal feed is expected to be of no concern for the consumers and for the environment. The essential oil under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal sensitiser. When handling the essential oil, exposure of unprotected users to methyleugenol may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. Since the leaves of C. nardus and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Macleaya cordata (Willd.) R. Br. extract and leaves (Sangrovit® Extra) as a zootechnical feed additive for suckling and weaned piglets and other growing Suidae. The additive is standardised to contain a concentration of the sum of the four alkaloids sanguinarine, chelerythrine, protopine and allocryptopine of 1.25%, with 0.5% sanguinarine. Owing to the presence of the DNA intercalators sanguinarine and chelerythrine, a concern for genotoxicity was identified. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) had no safety concerns for the target species when the additive is used at the recommended level of 0.750 mg sanguinarine/kg complete feed for suckling and weaned piglets and other growing Suidae. Since in all consumer categories the exposure to sanguinarine and chelerythrine via the use of Sangrovit® Extra exceeds the threshold of toxicological concern of 0.0025 μg/kg bw per day for DNA reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety for the consumers. The additive was shown to be irritant to the eyes but not irritant to skin or a skin sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel could not exclude the potential of the additive to be a respiratory sensitiser. When handling the additive, exposure of unprotected users to sanguinarine and chelerythrine may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of users should be reduced. The use of Sangrovit® Extra as a feed additive under the proposed conditions of use was considered safe for the environment. The additive Sangrovit® Extra had the potential to be efficacious in improving performance of weaned piglets at 0.600 mg sanguinarine/kg complete feed. This conclusion was extended to suckling piglets and extrapolated to other growing Suidae.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a tincture from the leaves of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. (eucalyptus tincture) when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The product is a ■■■■■ solution, with a dry matter content of ~ 1.86%, which contains on average 0.454% phenolic acids and flavonoids (of which 0.280% was gallic acid), 0.0030% 1,8‐cineole and 0.00012% methyleugenol. In the absence of analytical data on the occurrence of mono‐ or diformylated adducts of acylphloroglucinols with terpenes in the tincture and in the absence of toxicity data, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the use of eucalyptus tincture for long‐living and reproductive animals. For short‐living animals (species for fattening), the additive was considered of no concern at 4 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening, 5 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 6 mg/kg for piglets and rabbits for meat production, 7 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 16 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 14 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses for fattening, and 15 mg/kg for salmonids. These levels were extrapolated to physiologically related minor species. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of eucalyptus tincture up to the levels in feed considered of no concern. Eucalyptus tincture should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. The use of eucalyptus tincture as a flavour in animal feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since the leaves of E. globulus and their preparations were recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same, no demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the wood of Juniperus deppeana Steud. (cedarwood Texas oil), when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the essential oil under assessment is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 15 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, sheep, goats, horses, dogs, salmonids and ornamental fish. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations in complete feed were 5 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 8 mg/kg for laying hens, 7 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 10 mg/kg for piglets, 12 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 14 mg/kg for sows and dairy cows, 8.5 mg/kg for rabbits and 4 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive was considered safe at 4 mg/kg complete feed. The use of cedarwood Texas oil in water for drinking was considered safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumers and the environment were identified following the use of the additive up to the maximum proposed use level in feed. The additive under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Since the individual components of cedarwood Texas oil are recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a tincture from the roots of Panax ginseng C.A.Mey. (ginseng tincture), when used as a sensory additive in feed for horses, dogs and cats. The product is a water/ethanol (40:60 v/v) solution, with a dry matter content of no more than 6% and a content of 0.01%–0.5% (w/w) for the sum of the two triterpene saponins ginsenoside Rb1 and ginsenoside Rg1. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the tincture is safe for horses, dogs and cats at the maximum proposed use level of 48.6, 228.7 and 162 mg/kg complete feed, respectively. The Panel also concluded that the additive is considered safe for consumers when used at the proposed conditions of use in feed for horses. Ginseng tincture should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. The use of the ginseng tincture as a flavour in feed for horses was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since the roots of P. ginseng and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same, no demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a feed additive obtained from the dried leaves of Ginkgo biloba L. (ginkgo extract) when used as a sensory additive in feed for horses, dogs, cats, rabbits and guinea pigs. Ginkgo extract contains ≥ 24% total flavonoids, ≥ 6% total terpene lactones and ≤ 1 mg/kg ginkgolic acids. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that ginkgo extract is safe for the target species at the following concentrations in complete feed: 2.8 mg/kg for horses and cats, 1.1 mg/kg for rabbits and guinea pigs, and 3.3 mg/kg for dogs. No safety concern would arise for the consumers from the use of ginkgo extract up to the highest level in feed which is considered safe for food‐producing species (horses and rabbits). The additive should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. The use of the additive at the proposed level in feed for the target species is not considered to be a risk to the environment. While the available data indicate that Ginkgo preparations have a distinctive flavour profile, there is no evidence that the ginkgo extract would impart flavour to a food or feed matrix. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additive.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of cajuput oil obtained from fresh leaves of Melaleuca cajuputi Maton & Sm. ex R. Powell and Melaleuca leucadendra (L.) L., when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that cajuput oil is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 30 mg/kg for sows and dogs, 50 mg/kg for horses and ornamental fish, 40 mg/kg for salmon and 5 mg/kg for cats. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations were 18 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 26 mg/kg for laying hens, 23 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 37 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 31 mg/kg for piglets, 78 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 69 mg/kg for cattle for fattening and sheep/goats, 45 mg/kg for dairy cows and 28 mg/kg for rabbits. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 5 mg/kg complete feed. The use of cajuput oil in water for drinking was considered safe provided that the total daily intake does not exceed the daily amount considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumers and the environment were identified following the use of the additive up to the highest safe use level in feed. The essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since cajuput oil was recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the proposed modification of the terms of the authorisation regarding the maximum inclusion level of a feed additive consisting of 4‐hydroxy‐2,5‐dimethylfuran‐3(2H)‐one for cats and dogs. 4‐Hydroxy‐2,5‐dimethylfuran‐3(2H)‐one is currently authorised for use as a sensory additive (functional group: flavouring compounds) for cats and dogs at a recommended maximum content of 5 mg/kg complete feed. The applicant is requesting a modification of the authorisation to increase the recommended maximum content of the additive up to 25 mg/kg complete feed for cats and dogs. Based on the toxicological data available, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that 4‐hydroxy‐2,5‐dimethylfuran‐3(2H)‐one is safe for dogs at 25 mg/kg feed and for cats at 18 mg/kg feed. The additive is irritant to skin, eyes and to the respiratory tract and is a skin sensitiser. No further demonstration of efficacy is necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a tincture from the dried fruit of Schisandra chinensis (Turcz.) Baill. (omicha tincture), when used as a sensory additive in feed for horses, cats, dogs, and in feed and in water for drinking for poultry. The product is a water/ethanol (55:45 v/v) solution, with a dry matter content of not more than 4% (w/w) and a content of 0.01%–0.15% (w/w) for the sum of schisandrin and deoxyschisandrin. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that omicha tincture is safe at the following concentrations in complete feed: 16 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 12 mg/kg for chickens for fattening and other poultry for fattening or reared for laying/reproduction, 18 mg/kg for laying hens and other laying/reproductive birds, 56 mg/kg for dogs and 47 mg/kg for horses and cats. The additive is considered safe for consumers when used up to the highest safe level in feed for poultry species and horses. Omicha tincture should be considered as irritants to skin and eyes, and as dermal and respiratory sensitisers. The use of omicha tincture as a flavour in feed for poultry species and horses was not considered to be a risk to the environment. Since it was recognised that the fruit of S. chinensis can influence sensory properties of feedingstuffs, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary for the tincture under assessment.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the fruit of Coriandrum sativum L. (coriander oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of coriander oil is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels of 30 mg/kg complete feed for piglets, pigs for fattening, sows, veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, sheep, goats and horses, salmonids, dogs and ornamental fish. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations in complete feed are: 14 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 28 mg/kg for laying hens, 26 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 28 mg/kg for rabbits and 14 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive was considered safe at 14 mg/kg complete feed. The proposed conditions of use for veal calves (10 mg/kg) and ruminants, horses and dogs (5 mg/kg) were considered safe provided that the use in water for drinking alone or in combination with the use in feed should not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed alone. No concerns for consumers and the environment were identified following the use of coriander oil up to the maximum proposed use level in feed. Coriander oil should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since C. sativum and its preparations are recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract EFSA Strategy 2027 outlines the need for fit‐for‐purpose protocols for EFSA generic scientific assessments to aid in delivering trustworthy scientific advice. This EFSA Scientific Committee guidance document helps address this need by providing a harmonised and flexible framework for developing protocols for EFSA generic assessments. The guidance replaces the ‘Draft framework for protocol development for EFSA's scientific assessments’ published in 2020. The two main steps in protocol development are described. The first is problem formulation, which illustrates the objectives of the assessment. Here a new approach to translating the mandated Terms of Reference into scientifically answerable assessment questions and sub‐questions is proposed: the ‘APRIO' paradigm (Agent, Pathway, Receptor, Intervention and Output). Owing to its cross‐cutting nature, this paradigm is considered adaptable and broadly applicable within and across the various EFSA domains and, if applied using the definitions given in this guidance, is expected to help harmonise the problem formulation process and outputs and foster consistency in protocol development. APRIO may also overcome the difficulty of implementing some existing frameworks across the multiple EFSA disciplines, e.g. the PICO/PECO approach (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome). Therefore, although not mandatory, APRIO is recommended. The second step in protocol development is the specification of the evidence needs and the methods that will be applied for answering the assessment questions and sub‐questions, including uncertainty analysis. Five possible approaches to answering individual (sub‐)questions are outlined: using evidence from scientific literature and study reports; using data from databases other than bibliographic; using expert judgement informally collected or elicited via semi‐formal or formal expert knowledge elicitation processes; using mathematical/statistical models; and – not covered in this guidance – generating empirical evidence ex novo. The guidance is complemented by a standalone ‘template’ for EFSA protocols that guides the users step by step through the process of planning an EFSA scientific assessment.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a fraction of the essential oil from the fruit and leaves of Illicium verum Hook.f. (star anise terpenes), when used as a feed additive for all animal species. The additive contains up to 25% estragole by specification and is obtained by a manufacturing process which results in the enrichment of this genotoxic carcinogen. This is not in line with the principles outlined in the general approach to assess the safety for the target species of botanical preparations which contain compounds that are genotoxic and/or carcinogenic when used as feed additives. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel considered it was inappropriate to perform an assessment of the safety and efficacy of star anise terpenes for its use as a feed additive.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of essential oils from fruit and stems of Foeniculum vulgare Mill. (bitter fennel oil and sweet fennel oil), when used as sensory additives (flavourings). For long‐living and reproductive animals, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) considered of low concern the use of bitter fennel oil (with a content of estragole up to 6.1%) at the proposed use level in complete feed: 0.6 mg/kg for laying hens and rabbits, 1.0 mg/kg for sows and dairy cows, 1.5 mg/kg for sheep/goats, horses and cats, 1.9 mg/kg for dogs and 7.1 mg/kg for ornamental fish. For short‐living animals (animals for fattening), the Panel had no safety concern when bitter fennel oil is used at the proposed use level in complete feed of 18.2 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 24.3 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening and 25 mg/kg for piglets, pigs for fattening, veal calves, cattle for fattening, sheep/goats, horses, rabbits and salmon. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. The use of sweet fennel oil (with a content of estragole up to 5.0%) was considered of low concern at the proposed use level in complete feed of 2.3 mg/kg for dogs and 1.9 mg/kg cats. The use of bitter fennel oil in animal feed is expected to be of no concern for consumers and the environment. The additives under assessment should be considered as irritants to skin and eyes, and as dermal and respiratory sensitisers. Due to the high concentration of estragole (> 1%), fennel oils are classified as suspected of causing genetic defects and of causing cancer and should be handled accordingly. Since the fruit of F. vulgare Mill. ssp. vulgare and its preparations are recognised to flavour food, no further demonstration of efficacy was necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of essential oils from the flower buds or the leaves of Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merr. & L.M. Perry: clove bud oil, clove leaf oil and a β‐caryophyllene‐rich fraction of clove leaf oil (CCL oil), when used as sensory additives in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. Clove oils contain methyleugenol (up to 0.13%). The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of clove oils was of low concern for long‐living and reproductive animals and of no concern for target species for fattening at the following concentrations in complete feed: 25–50 mg/kg for clove bud oil, 28–100 mg/kg for clove leaf oil and 20 mg/kg for CCL oil. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use in water for drinking alone or in conjunction with use in feed should not exceed the daily amount that is considered of low or no concern when consumed via feed alone. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of clove oils up to the highest safe level in feed. The additives under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract and as skin sensitisers. When handling the essential oils, exposure of unprotected users to methyleugenol may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. The use of clove oils at the proposed use level in feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since clove bud oil and clove leaf oil are recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same, no demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the leaves and twigs of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. (eucalyptus oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of eucalyptus oil is safe at the following concentrations in complete feed: 12 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 18 mg/kg for laying hens, 16 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 22 mg/kg for piglets, 26 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 32 mg/kg for sows, 55 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 48 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep, goats and horses, 31 mg/kg for dairy cows, 19 mg/kg for rabbits, 55 mg/kg for salmonids, 58 mg/kg for dogs, 10 mg/kg for cats and 75 mg/kg for ornamental fish. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive was considered safe at 10 mg/kg complete feed. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of eucalyptus oil up to the highest safe level in feed. The additive under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract and as a skin sensitiser. The use of eucalyptus oil at the proposed use level in feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since E. globulus and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of lemongrass oil obtained from the aerial parts of Cymbopogon flexuosus (Nees ex Steud.) Will. Watson when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that lemongrass oil is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 125 mg/kg for salmonids; 100 mg/kg for sows and horses; 75 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, dairy cows, sheep and goats; and 50 mg/kg for dogs and ornamental fish. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations in complete feed were 41 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 61 mg/kg for laying hens, 55 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 74 mg/kg for piglets, 88 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 65 mg/kg for rabbits and 33 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 33 mg/kg complete feed. The use of lemongrass oil in water for drinking for poultry, pigs, calves and rabbit is safe provided that the total daily intake does not exceed the daily amount considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumers and the environment were identified following the use of the additive up to the highest safe use level in feed. The essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the aerial parts of C. flexuosus and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of star anise oil from the fruit (without or with the presence of plant leaves) of Illicium verum Hook.f., when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. For long‐living and reproductive animals, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) considered of low concern the use of the additive in complete feed at 0.6 mg/kg for laying hens and rabbits, 1.0 mg/kg for sows and dairy cows, 1.6 mg/kg for sheep/goats, horses and cats, 1.9 mg/kg for dogs and 6.5 mg/kg for ornamental fish. For short‐living animals, the Panel had no safety concern when the additive is used at 83.3 mg/kg for veal calves, 73.3 mg/kg for sheep/goats, cattle for fattening and horses for meat production, 83.8 mg/kg for salmonids, 24.8 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 18.5 mg/kg chickens for fattening, 33.3 mg/kg for piglets, 40 mg/kg for pigs for fattening and 29.3 mg/kg for rabbits for meat production. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive was considered of low concern at 0.6 mg/kg. The use of star anise oil in animal feed is expected to be of no concern for consumers and for the environment. The additive under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Due to the high concentration of estragole (≥ 1%), the additive is classified as suspected of causing genetic defects and of causing cancer and should be handled accordingly. Since the fruit of I. verum and its preparations are recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be the same, no further demonstration of efficacy was necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the seeds of Myristica fragrans Houtt. (nutmeg oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The additive contains myristicin (up to 12%), safrole (2.30%), elemicin (0.40%) and methyleugenol (0.33%). For long‐living and reproductive animals, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) considered of low concern the use of the additive in complete feed at 0.2 mg/kg for laying hens and rabbits, 0.3 mg/kg for sows and dairy cows, 0.5 mg/kg for sheep/goats, horses and cats, 0.6 mg/kg for dogs and 2.5 mg/kg for ornamental fish. For short‐living animals, the Panel had no safety concern when the additive is used at the maximum proposed use level of 10 mg/kg for veal calves, cattle for fattening, sheep/goats, horses for meat production, and salmon and for the other species, at 3.3 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 2.8 mg/kg chickens for fattening, 5.0 mg/kg for piglets, 6.0 mg/kg for pigs for fattening and 4.4 mg/kg for rabbits for meat production. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive was considered of low concern at 0.2 mg/kg. The use of nutmeg oil in animal feed was expected to be of no concern for consumers and the environment. The additive should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Based on the presence of safrole, nutmeg oil is classified as carcinogen (category 1B) and handled accordingly. Since nutmeg oil was recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be the same, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the leaves of Laurus nobilis L. (laurel leaf oil), when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The additive contains up to 4% methyleugenol. The use of the additive at 2 mg/kg complete feed in dogs and cats was considered of low concern. For other long‐living and reproductive animals, the use of the additive at 10 mg/kg was considered of concern. For short‐living animals, the Panel had no safety concern when the additive is used at 10 mg/kg complete feed for turkeys for fattening, piglets and other growing Suidae, pigs for fattening, veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening and other growing ruminants, horses and rabbits for meat production, salmonids and other fin fish; and at 8.5 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, other growing poultry and other minor species for fattening. The use of laurel leaf oil up to the highest level in feed which was considered of no concern for target animals was also expected to be of no concern for consumers. The additive should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract. Due to the high concentration of methyleugenol (≥ 1%), the additive was classified by the applicant as suspected of causing genetic defects and of causing cancer and should be handled accordingly. The use of the additive under the proposed conditions of use was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since the leaves of L. nobilis and their preparations were recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be the same, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the fruit of Cuminum cyminum L. (cumin oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of cumin oil up to the maximum proposed use levels in feed of 15 mg/kg complete feed is considered as safe for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel considered the use in water for drinking as safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of cumin oil up to the maximum proposed use level in feed. The additive under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. When handling the essential oil, exposure of unprotected users to estragole (and dillapiole) cannot be excluded. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. The use of cumin oil at the proposed use level in feed is not expected to pose a risk to the environment. Since C. cyminum and its preparations are recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy is considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from leaves, stalks and twigs of Cinnamomum cassia (L.) J. Presl (cassia leaf oil) when used as a sensory additive (flavouring) in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. Owing to the presence of styrene in cassia leaf oil, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude for long‐living animals and animals for reproduction. For ‘short‐living’ animals, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that cassia leaf oil is considered as safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 28.5 mg/kg for chickens for fattening and other minor poultry, 38 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 51 mg/kg for piglets and other minor Suidae, 61 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 100 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 60 mg/kg for cattle for fattening and other ruminants for fattening, 30 mg/kg for horses, 25 mg/kg for rabbits, 125 mg/kg for salmonids and other fin fish. For the other minor species, the additive is considered as safe at 28.5 mg/kg complete feed. For ‘short‐living’ animals, the FEEDAP Panel considered the use in water for drinking as safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of the additive at the use levels considered safe in feed for the target species. When handling the essential oil, exposure of unprotected users to styrene cannot be excluded. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. The use of the additive under the proposed conditions in animal feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Cassia leaf oil was recognised to flavour food. Since its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract The Scientific Committee (SC) reconfirms that the benchmark dose (BMD) approach is a scientifically more advanced method compared to the no‐observed‐adverse‐effect‐level (NOAEL) approach for deriving a Reference Point (RP). The major change compared to the previous Guidance (EFSA SC, 2017) concerns the Section 2.5, in which a change from the frequentist to the Bayesian paradigm is recommended. In the former, uncertainty about the unknown parameters is measured by confidence and significance levels, interpreted and calibrated under hypothetical repetition, while probability distributions are attached to the unknown parameters in the Bayesian approach, and the notion of probability is extended to reflect uncertainty of knowledge. In addition, the Bayesian approach can mimic a learning process and reflects the accumulation of knowledge over time. Model averaging is again recommended as the preferred method for estimating the BMD and calculating its credible interval. The set of default models to be used for BMD analysis has been reviewed and amended so that there is now a single set of models for quantal and continuous data. The flow chart guiding the reader step‐by‐step when performing a BMD analysis has also been updated, and a chapter comparing the frequentist to the Bayesian paradigm inserted. Also, when using Bayesian BMD modelling, the lower bound (BMDL) is to be considered as potential RP, and the upper bound (BMDU) is needed for establishing the BMDU/BMDL ratio reflecting the uncertainty in the BMD estimate. This updated guidance does not call for a general re‐evaluation of previous assessments where the NOAEL approach or the BMD approach as described in the 2009 or 2017 Guidance was used, in particular when the exposure is clearly lower (e.g. more than one order of magnitude) than the health‐based guidance value. Finally, the SC firmly reiterates to reconsider test guidelines given the wide application of the BMD approach.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of essential oils from the bark and the leaves of Cinnamomum verum J. Presl (cinnamon bark oil and cinnamon leaf oil), when used as sensory additives (flavourings) in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. Owing to the presence of styrene in the essential oils under assessment, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for long‐living animals and animals for reproduction. For ‘short‐living’ animals, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that cinnamon bark oil and cinnamon leaf oil are considered as safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed. For ‘short‐living’ animals, the Panel considered the use of cinnamon bark oil in water for drinking as safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. For cinnamon leaf oil, the proposed use level in water for drinking of 3 mg/L is considered as safe for ‘short‐living’ animals. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of the additives at the use level considered safe in feed for the target species. Based on the presence of safrole ≥0.1%, cinnamon leaf oil and bark oil are classified as carcinogen (category 1B) and handled accordingly. The use of the additives under the proposed conditions in animal feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since C. verum and its preparations are recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same, no further demonstration of efficacy is considered necessary for cinnamon essential oils.

Abstract EFSA was asked by the European Commission to evaluate synthetic biology (SynBio) developments for agri‐food use in the near future and to determine whether or not they are expected to constitute potential new hazards/risks. Moreover, EFSA was requested to evaluate the adequacy of existing guidelines for risk assessment of SynBio and if updated guidance is needed. The scope of this Opinion covers food and feed risk assessment, the variety of microorganisms that can be used in the food/feed chain and the whole spectrum of techniques used in SynBio. This Opinion complements a previously adopted Opinion with the evaluation of existing guidelines for the microbial characterisation and environmental risk assessment of microorganisms obtained through SynBio. The present Opinion confirms that microbial SynBio applications for food and feed use, with the exception of xenobionts, could be ready in the European Union in the next decade. New hazards were identified related to the use or production of unusual and/or new‐to‐nature components. Fifteen cases were selected for evaluating the adequacy of existing guidelines. These were generally adequate for assessing the product, the production process, nutritional and toxicological safety, allergenicity, exposure and post‐market monitoring. The comparative approach and a safety assessment per se could be applied depending on the degree of familiarity of the SynBio organism/product with the non‐genetically modified counterparts. Updated guidance is recommended for: (i) bacteriophages, protists/microalgae, (ii) exposure to plant protection products and biostimulants, (iii) xenobionts and (iv) feed additives for insects as target species. Development of risk assessment tools is recommended for assessing nutritional value of biomasses, influence of microorganisms on the gut microbiome and the gut function, allergenic potential of new‐to‐nature proteins, impact of horizontal gene transfer and potential risks of living cell intake. A further development towards a strain‐driven risk assessment approach is recommended.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on dried coffee husk (cascara) from Coffea arabica L. as a novel food (NF) pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. The NF comprises the skin (exocarp), pulp (mesocarp), mucilage (pectin), parchment (endocarp) and a portion of the silver skin of the coffee fruit, and consists mainly of digestible carbohydrates, dietary fibre and water. The Panel considers that there are no safety concerns regarding the stability of the NF if the NF complies with the proposed specification limits during its entire shelf‐life. The NF as such will not be consumed, instead, beverages produced with the infusion of the NF in water will be available to consumers. Considering an 100% extraction of caffeine from the NF to the beverage, the specification limit set for caffeine and the proposed use levels, the maximum concentration of caffeine in infusions produced using the NF could be up to 600 mg/L of drink, a concentration comparable to those in coffee beverages. The Panel notes that consumption of beverages produced using the NF will add significantly to the total dietary intake of caffeine of the general population. The consumption of beverages containing caffeine is not recommended for children, pregnant or breast‐feeding women if the caffeine content exceeds 150 mg/L. Taking into account the nature of the NF, the history of use of the NF as food and the proposed uses and use levels, the Panel considers that no toxicological studies are required on the NF. The risk of allergic reactions to the NF is considered low. The Panel concludes that the NF, dried husk of the fruit of Coffea arabica L., is safe under the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract This Opinion assesses the biological relevance of the non‐monotonic dose responses (NMDR) identified in a previous EFSA External Report (Beausoleil et al., 2016) produced under GP/EFSA/SCER/2014/01 and the follow‐up probabilistic assessment (Chevillotte et al., 2017a,b), focusing on the in vivo data sets fulfilling most of the checkpoints of the visual/statistical‐based analysis identified in Beausoleil et al. (2016). The evaluation was completed with cases discussed in EFSA assessments and the update of the scientific literature. Observations of NMDR were confirmed in certain studies and are particularly relevant for receptor‐mediated effects. Based on the results of the evaluation, the Opinion proposes an approach to be applied during the risk assessment process when apparent non‐monotonicity is observed, also providing advice on specific elements to be considered to facilitate the assessment of NMDR in EFSA risk assessments. The proposed approach was applied to two case studies, Bisphenol A and bis(2‐ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) and these evaluations are reported in dedicated annexes. Considering the potential impact of NMDRs in regulatory risk assessment, the Scientific Committee recommends a concerted international effort on developing internationally agreed guidance and harmonised frameworks for identifying and addressing NMDRs in the risk assessment process.

Abstract The EFSA has updated the Guidance on risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain, human and animal health. It covers the application areas within EFSA’s remit, including novel foods, food contact materials, food/feed additives and pesticides. The updated guidance, now Scientific Committee Guidance on nano risk assessment (SC Guidance on Nano‐RA), has taken account of relevant scientific studies that provide insights to physico‐chemical properties, exposure assessment and hazard characterisation of nanomaterials and areas of applicability. Together with the accompanying Guidance on Technical requirements for regulated food and feed product applications to establish the presence of small particles including nanoparticles (Guidance on Particle‐TR), the SC Guidance on Nano‐RA specifically elaborates on physico‐chemical characterisation, key parameters that should be measured, methods and techniques that can be used for characterisation of nanomaterials and their determination in complex matrices. The SC Guidance on Nano‐RA also details aspects relating to exposure assessment and hazard identification and characterisation. In particular, nanospecific considerations relating to in vitro/in vivo toxicological studies are discussed and a tiered framework for toxicological testing is outlined. Furthermore, in vitro degradation, toxicokinetics, genotoxicity, local and systemic toxicity as well as general issues relating to testing of nanomaterials are described. Depending on the initial tier results, additional studies may be needed to investigate reproductive and developmental toxicity, chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity, immunotoxicity and allergenicity, neurotoxicity, effects on gut microbiome and endocrine activity. The possible use of read‐across to fill data gaps as well as the potential use of integrated testing strategies and the knowledge of modes or mechanisms of action are also discussed. The Guidance proposes approaches to risk characterisation and uncertainty analysis.

Abstract Following a mandate from the European Commission, EFSA has developed a Guidance on Technical Requirements (Guidance on Particle‐TR), defining the criteria for assessing the presence of a fraction of small particles, and setting out information requirements for applications in the regulated food and feed product areas (e.g. novel food, food/feed additives, food contact materials and pesticides). These requirements apply to particles requiring specific assessment at the nanoscale in conventional materials that do not meet the definition of engineered nanomaterial as set out in the Novel Food Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. The guidance outlines appraisal criteria grouped in three sections, to confirm whether or not the conventional risk assessment should be complemented with nanospecific considerations. The first group addresses solubility and dissolution rate as key physicochemical properties to assess whether consumers will be exposed to particles. The second group establishes the information requirements for assessing whether the conventional material contains a fraction or consists of small particles, and its characterisation. The third group describes the information to be presented for existing safety studies to demonstrate that the fraction of small particles, including particles at the nanoscale, has been properly evaluated. In addition, in order to guide the appraisal of existing safety studies, recommendations for closing the data gaps while minimising the need for conducting new animal studies are provided. This Guidance on Particle‐TR complements the Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials to be applied in the food and feed chain, human and animal health updated by the EFSA Scientific Committee as co‐published with this Guidance. Applicants are advised to consult both guidance documents before conducting new studies.

Abstract The EFSA Scientific Committee was asked to provide guidance on the most appropriate in vivo tests to follow up on positive in vitro results for aneugenicity, and on the approach to risk assessment for substances that are aneugenic but not clastogenic nor causing gene mutations. The Scientific Committee confirmed that the preferred approach is to perform an in vivo mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test with a relevant route of administration. If this is positive, it demonstrates that the substance is aneugenic in vivo. A negative result with evidence that the bone marrow is exposed to the test substance supports a conclusion that aneugenic activity is not expressed in vivo. If there is no evidence of exposure to the bone marrow, a negative result is viewed as inconclusive and further studies are required. The liver micronucleus assay, even though not yet fully validated, can provide supporting information for substances that are aneugenic following metabolic activation. The gastrointestinal micronucleus test, conversely, to be further developed, may help to assess aneugenic potential at the initial site of contact for substances that are aneugenic in vitro without metabolic activation. Based on the evidence in relation to mechanisms of aneugenicity, the Scientific Committee concluded that, in principle, health‐based guidance values can be established for substances that are aneugenic but not clastogenic nor causing gene mutations, provided that a comprehensive toxicological database is available. For situations in which the toxicological database is not sufficient to establish health‐based guidance values, some approaches to risk assessment are proposed. The Scientific Committee recommends further development of the gastrointestinal micronucleus test, and research to improve the understanding of aneugenicity to support risk assessment.

Abstract The European Parliament requested EFSA to develop a holistic risk assessment of multiple stressors in honey bees. To this end, a systems‐based approach that is composed of two core components: a monitoring system and a modelling system are put forward with honey bees taken as a showcase. Key developments in the current scientific opinion (including systematic data collection from sentinel beehives and an agent‐based simulation) have the potential to substantially contribute to future development of environmental risk assessments of multiple stressors at larger spatial and temporal scales. For the monitoring, sentinel hives would be placed across representative climatic zones and landscapes in the EU and connected to a platform for data storage and analysis. Data on bee health status, chemical residues and the immediate or broader landscape around the hives would be collected in a harmonised and standardised manner, and would be used to inform stakeholders, and the modelling system, ApisRAM, which simulates as accurately as possible a honey bee colony. ApisRAM would be calibrated and continuously updated with incoming monitoring data and emerging scientific knowledge from research. It will be a supportive tool for beekeeping, farming, research, risk assessment and risk management, and it will benefit the wider society. A societal outlook on the proposed approach is included and this was conducted with targeted social science research with 64 beekeepers from eight EU Member States and with members of the EU Bee Partnership. Gaps and opportunities are identified to further implement the approach. Conclusions and recommendations are made on a way forward, both for the application of the approach and its use in a broader context.

Abstract The present opinion deals with an updated safety assessment of the food additive titanium dioxide (E 171) based on new relevant scientific evidence considered by the Panel to be reliable, including data obtained with TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs) and data from an extended one‐generation reproductive toxicity (EOGRT) study. Less than 50% of constituent particles by number in E 171 have a minimum external dimension < 100 nm. In addition, the Panel noted that constituent particles < 30 nm amounted to less than 1% of particles by number. The Panel therefore considered that studies with TiO2 NPs < 30 nm were of limited relevance to the safety assessment of E 171. The Panel concluded that although gastrointestinal absorption of TiO2 particles is low, they may accumulate in the body. Studies on general and organ toxicity did not indicate adverse effects with either E 171 up to a dose of 1,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day or with TiO2 NPs (> 30 nm) up to the highest dose tested of 100 mg/kg bw per day. No effects on reproductive and developmental toxicity were observed up to a dose of 1,000 mg E 171/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested in the EOGRT study. However, observations of potential immunotoxicity and inflammation with E 171 and potential neurotoxicity with TiO2 NPs, together with the potential induction of aberrant crypt foci with E 171, may indicate adverse effects. With respect to genotoxicity, the Panel concluded that TiO2 particles have the potential to induce DNA strand breaks and chromosomal damage, but not gene mutations. No clear correlation was observed between the physico‐chemical properties of TiO2 particles and the outcome of either in vitro or in vivo genotoxicity assays. A concern for genotoxicity of TiO2 particles that may be present in E 171 could therefore not be ruled out. Several modes of action for the genotoxicity may operate in parallel and the relative contributions of different molecular mechanisms elicited by TiO2 particles are not known. There was uncertainty as to whether a threshold mode of action could be assumed. In addition, a cut‐off value for TiO2 particle size with respect to genotoxicity could not be identified. No appropriately designed study was available to investigate the potential carcinogenic effects of TiO2 NPs. Based on all the evidence available, a concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out, and given the many uncertainties, the Panel concluded that E 171 can no longer be considered as safe when used as a food additive.

Abstract This Statement presents a proposal for harmonising the establishment of Health‐Based Guidance Values (HBGVs) for regulated products that are also nutrients. This is a recurrent issue for food additives and pesticides, and may occasionally occur for other regulated products. The Statement describes the specific considerations that should be followed for establishing the HBGVs during the assessment of a regulated product that is also a nutrient. It also addresses the elements to be considered in the intake assessment; and proposes a decision tree for ensuring a harmonised process for the risk characterisation of regulated products that are also nutrients. The Scientific Committee recommends the involvement of the relevant EFSA Panels and units, in order to ensure an integrated and harmonised approach for the hazard and risk characterisation of regulated products that are also nutrients, considering the intake from all relevant sources.

Abstract Endorsement date 21 January 2021 Implementation date 27 March 2021 Following the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 on novel foods, the European Commission requested EFSA develop scientific and technical guidance for the preparation and submission of applications for authorisation of novel foods. This guidance presents a common format for the organisation of the information to be presented by the applicant when preparing a well‐structured application to demonstrate the safety of the novel food. It outlines the data needed for the safety assessments of novel foods. Requirements relate to the description of the novel food, production process, compositional data, specification, proposed uses and use levels, and anticipated intake of the novel food. Further sections on the history of use of the novel food and/or its source, absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, nutritional information, toxicological information and allergenicity should be considered by the applicant by default. If not covered in the application, this should be justified. The applicant should integrate the data presented in the different sections to provide their overall considerations on how the information supports the safety of the novel food under the proposed conditions of use. Where potential health hazards have been identified, they should be discussed in relation to the anticipated intakes of the novel food and the proposed target populations. On the basis of the information provided, EFSA will assess the safety of the novel food under the proposed conditions of use. This guidance was originally adopted in 2016.It has beenrevised to informapplicants of the new provisions introduced by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 on the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain.This revised guidance applies to all dossiers submitted as of 27 March 2021. The 2016 version of this guidance remains applicable to applications submitted before 27 March 2021.

Abstract Endorsement date 21 January 2021 Implementation date 27 March 2021 Following the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 on Novel Foods, the European Commission requested EFSA to develop a scientific and technical guidance for the preparation and submission of notifications for traditional foods from third countries. This guidance presents a common format for the organisation of the information to be presented by applicant for the preparation of a well‐structured dossier. The safety of a traditional food should be substantiated by reliable data on its composition, its experience of continued use and its proposed conditions of use. Its normal consumption should not be nutritionally disadvantageous. This guidance is also intended to support applicants in providing the type and quality of information EU Member States and EFSA need for the assessments of traditional foods from third countries. The applicant should integrate the information on the composition and the experience of continued use and provide a concise overall consideration on how this substantiates the history of safe use of the traditional food and how this relates to the proposed conditions of use for the EU. Where potential health hazards have been identified on the basis of the composition and/or data from the experience of continued use, they should be discussed. On the basis of the information provided, EFSA will assess the safety related to the consumption of the traditional food under the proposed conditions of use. This guidance was originally adopted by the NDA Panel in 2016. It has been revised in 2020 to inform applicants of the new provisions introduced by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 on the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain.It is applicable to allnotifications and applications submitted as of 27 March 2021. The 2016 version remains applicable to notifications and applications submitted before 27 March 2021.

Abstract EFSA was asked by the European Commission to consider synthetic biology developments for agri‐food use in the near future and to determine if the use of this technology is expected to constitute potential risks and hazards for the environment. Moreover, EFSA was requested to evaluate the adequacy of existing guidelines for risk assessment and if updated guidance is needed. The scope of this Opinion covers viable synthetic biology microorganisms (SynBioMs) expected to be deliberately released into the environment. The evaluation was based on: (i) horizon scanning of published information, (ii) gap analysis of existing guidelines covering the scope of this mandate, and (iii) future outlooks. A horizon scan showed that SynBioM applications could be ready for deliberate release into the environment of the EU in the next decade. However, extensively engineered SynBioMs are only expected in the wider future. For the microbial characterisation and the environmental risk assessment, the existing EFSA Guidances are useful as a basis. The extent to which existing Guidances can be used depends on the familiarity of the SynBioM with non‐modified organisms. Among the recommendations for updated Guidance, the range of uses of products to be assessed covering all agri‐food uses and taking into account all types of microorganisms, their relevant exposure routes and receiving environments. It is suggested that new EFSA Guidances address all ‘specific areas of risk’ as per Directive 2001/18/EC. No novel environmental hazards are expected for current and near future SynBioMs. However, the efficacy by which the SynBioMs interact with the environment may differ. This could lead to increased exposure and risk. Novel hazards connected with the development of xenobionts may be expected in the wider future.

Abstract EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of aflatoxins in food. The risk assessment was confined to aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), AFB2, AFG1, AFG2 and AFM1. More than 200,000 analytical results on the occurrence of aflatoxins were used in the evaluation. Grains and grain‐based products made the largest contribution to the mean chronic dietary exposure to AFB1 in all age classes, while ‘liquid milk’ and ‘fermented milk products’ were the main contributors to the AFM1 mean exposure. Aflatoxins are genotoxic and AFB1 can cause hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) in humans. The CONTAM Panel selected a benchmark dose lower confidence limit (BMDL) for a benchmark response of 10% of 0.4 μg/kg body weight (bw) per day for the incidence of HCC in male rats following AFB1 exposure to be used in a margin of exposure (MOE) approach. The calculation of a BMDL from the human data was not appropriate; instead, the cancer potencies estimated by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives in 2016 were used. For AFM1, a potency factor of 0.1 relative to AFB1 was used. For AFG1, AFB2 and AFG2, the in vivo data are not sufficient to derive potency factors and equal potency to AFB1 was assumed as in previous assessments. MOE values for AFB1 exposure ranged from 5,000 to 29 and for AFM1 from 100,000 to 508. The calculated MOEs are below 10,000 for AFB1 and also for AFM1 where some surveys, particularly for the younger age groups, have an MOE below 10,000. This raises a health concern. The estimated cancer risks in humans following exposure to AFB1 and AFM1 are in‐line with the conclusion drawn from the MOEs. The conclusions also apply to the combined exposure to all five aflatoxins.

Abstract The EFSA Scientific Committee addressed in this document the peculiarities related to the genotoxicity assessment of chemical mixtures. The EFSA Scientific Committee suggests that first a mixture should be chemically characterised as far as possible. Although the characterisation of mixtures is relevant also for other toxicity aspects, it is particularly significant for the assessment of genotoxicity. If a mixture contains one or more chemical substances that are individually assessed to be genotoxic in vivo via a relevant route of administration, the mixture raises concern for genotoxicity. If a fully chemically defined mixture does not contain genotoxic chemical substances, the mixture is of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. If a mixture contains a fraction of chemical substances that have not been chemically identified, experimental testing of the unidentified fraction should be considered as the first option or, if this is not feasible, testing of the whole mixture should be undertaken. If testing of these fraction(s) or of the whole mixture in an adequately performed set of in vitro assays provides clearly negative results, the mixture does not raise concern for genotoxicity. If in vitro testing provides one or more positive results, an in vivo follow‐up study should be considered. For negative results in the in vivo follow‐up test(s), the possible limitations of in vivo testing should be weighed in an uncertainty analysis before reaching a conclusion of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. For positive results in the in vivo follow‐up test(s), it can be concluded that the mixture does raise a concern about genotoxicity.